Air Pollution Control District Hears from Climate Change Denier

Thursday’s Presentation Critiqued and Criticized by Many

Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

In a meeting that left everyone a bit confused, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Board of Directors heard a 20-minute speech Thursday from Bob Hinnrichs, a Santa Ynez Valley resident whose résumé impressed the board but made some members question the credibility — and purpose — of his presentation topic: climate change.

Hinnrichs, an engineer who helped design rocket engines for NASA and said he began studying climate change data in 2000 after he retired, was asked to give his presentation by the board’s outgoing chair, Solvang Mayor Jim Richardson. Ahead of the meeting, environmental groups, including the Community Environmental Council, expressed concern both with Hinnrichs’s speech — which cast aspersions on the scientific community’s consensus that climate change is not only happening but happening because of humans — and that a climate scientist was not also asked to speak.

It further worried environmental groups that the APCD board — a group composed of the five county supervisors plus elected representatives from each of the county’s eight incorporated cities and is in charge of looking out for the county’s air quality — was hearing from a climate change denier in the first place.

“I think it is outrageous and embarrassing that the chair of the organization tasked with regulating emissions in the county would invite a denier to come present demonstrably wrong and deliberately misleading information about climate change to the board,” Katie Davis, a representative of who worked for Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, wrote in an email. “He did this despite warnings that the information was incorrect, objections from many board members, the fact that climate change poses a direct and urgent threat, and the fact that we have many actual scientists and experts in the field living and working in Santa Barbara.”

Prior to the hearing, Richardson, who served his last meeting as chair on Thursday but will remain a member of the board, defended his decision to have Hinnrichs (whom he knows through a men’s group they’re both in) speak. “I thought it would be interesting, since the APCD is concerned about greenhouse gases — it would give them a different viewpoint,” Richardson said. “I hope to achieve a little bit more recognition of the data that’s available that contradicts the common thought and let the public see that there are different viewpoints.”

According to a report released this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Hinnrichs, who said before his presentation that he is “not a crusader,” focused most of his discussion on humans’ impact on climate change. “Obviously, man influences climate, but so do other forces,” he said. “The real issue is how much is one and how much is the other.”

Hinnrichs, who said he retrieved a lot of his data from the U.S. Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, railed against the models used by climate scientists, arguing that they didn’t account for enough variables by likening them to all of the factors that could determine how long it takes to mow a lawn: the number of mowers, the machine’s condition, and the time of day. Among other points, including an acknowledgement that the planet has warmed by one degree Fahrenheit, he compared the freak-out over global warming — which he said is misleading, and that the Earth has actually been cooling — to the panic in the 1970s over the projected Ice Age. He also pointed to a document signed by more than 31,000 scientists — a document Davis called “politically motivated” and not university-sourced — that denounces humans’ responsibility in causing climate change.

Hinnrichs argued that there is not “yet” enough evidence to suggest a link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change, noting that human-caused carbon dioxide only accounts for slightly more than 3 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. Davis said that 3 percent figure was misleading and that the carbon dioxide measurement people should pay attention to is parts per million (ppm). There is supposed to be only about 250 ppm, she said, but that the figure now has reached 400 ppm and is continuing to rise.

Michael Chiacos, who works at the Community Environmental Council as its energy and transportation manager, came to the meeting to address his concerns with Hinnrichs’s speech. When he was called to talk, Richardson immediately moved to shut him down, saying that the board didn’t have to hear from the public on the matter, a move quickly nixed by other members, including Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider and 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal. (After the meeting, Richardson said he tried to stop Chiacos from speaking because “not all meetings require input from the public, because it’s a meeting of the board,” especially when there is no action to be taken.)

“The science is settled. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change,” Chiacos said, calling it “unfortunate” that the subject has become a political one.

Several sources speculated that Richardson asked Hinnrichs to speak in the wake of the supervisors’ November vote on Santa Maria Energy’s oil-well project. The supervisors approved the project, but at a stricter standard than originally required, a decision that did not sit well with many North County politicians.

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino didn’t support the tougher standards for Santa Maria Energy in November, but didn’t support Richardson’s decision to have Hinnrichs speak on Thursday, either. He said Friday that he asked Richardson not to go forward with the presentation, likening people’s stances on climate change to that of religious beliefs, and that the presentation was “not going to convert somebody.”

Carbajal, one of the supes to vote for the tougher standards and who is also a member of a White House-appointed task force on climate change, called Hinnrichs and Richardson out. “Has anybody peer-reviewed your presentation?” he asked Hinnrichs. (Hinnrichs said the data he used was.) Carbajal also questioned Richardson’s motives for the presentation and requested that a climate scientist speak at the next APCD board meeting in January. According to Chiacos, UCSB geography professor Dr. Catherine Gautier — whose course list includes a class devoted to global warming — has offered to present at the next meeting.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"Settled science" ?
Only a committed left wing anti-capitalist, pro-totalitarian government worshipper could utter such a statement.

Only someone who is religiously ego-centric in their self-congratulatory "I know better than you" could speak such a statement.

And these are the people who, along with public employee unions, control California state and local government and lib dem politicians.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Realitycheck, you have checked out of reality. You right wing anti-science neo-fascists who swallow Fox Spews whole are what is wrong with this country.

webster (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.

(Pachauri isn't qualified to sign the petition disputing the IPCC claims, the Global Warming Petition, since it's restricted to holders of a minimum BS in a physical science, and he's a railroad engineer, not a scientist. The petition has over 31,400 signatures, including mine.

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.

Atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen, posted an article in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons characterizing global warming as an alarmist religion. Furthermore, he accuses alarmist orthodoxy of adjusting both data and theory to accommodate politically-correct positions that are costly to society.

" The IPCC’s 2001 Summary for Policymakers Report (TAR) stated: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The IPCC’s 2007 report (4AR) said: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
And now, a leaked draft of the new 2013 (5AR) is expected to conclude: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
And there you have it. Whereas they were previously only very likely sure that we humans contributed to global warming six years ago, now that there hasn’t been any warming for nearly three times that long they are expected to be extremely sure. Also, never mind that the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is the coolest decade since satellite records began in 1979."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

The UN IPCC reports aren't based on peer-reviewed research publications. The Petition Project's summary of only peer-reviewed research is at

Accusations that disagreement with AGW is financed by oil and gas industries has been discredited. NGO contractors who benefit from infrastructure contracting funded by the carbon tax support the theory of AGW.
Aerosol dispersants used by the US government can affect climate, and the HAARP program is capable of increasing the magnitude of climate events such as hurricanes, and

Improvement of the IPCC(95) Parameterization of Aerosol Chemical Composition

NOAA Table of Severe Weather Events 2000-2013

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Protecting the environment is a critical issue, and we need to assess man's affect on the environment using research conducted by the most qualified scientists and assess the impact of all variables that affect climate to develop policies that prevent negative effects on life on earth. The mission of UN WIDER, the agency that created the IPCC and instituted the carbon tax, is to divert funds from developed to undeveloped nations, and the major players unanimously state that preventing global warming and the science involved in assessing human effects on climate are secondary to that goal. The earth and all life on the planet deserves better.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams said: "And there you have it. Whereas they were previously only very likely sure that we humans contributed to global warming six years ago, now that there hasn’t been any warming for nearly three times that long they are expected to be extremely sure. Also, never mind that the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is the coolest decade since satellite records began in 1979."

Yes the climate model predictions given by climate scientists have called for exponential increases in warming into the future. The fact that we have had 15 years of flat lining might mean that these climate scientists everybody likes to trust might not be right about everything after all. Maybe we should question them. Maybe we should pay attention when it turns out that they are manipulating data. Maybe we shouldn't just accept the establishment media when they parade around a scientist saying that emails that had clear indication of manipulating data in a dishonest way were not in fact dishonest and anybody who says so "doesn't understand science". What a bunch of crap, the emails weren't written in 'science', they were clearly written in English and people that can read for themselves and accept that maybe - just maybe corporations are pushing man made climate change so they can regulate CO2 output in a way that allows them to output what they need and limit their competitors if not keep them out altogether. I have news for you, big industrial corporations own MSNBC and CNN, not just Fox News.

There's also this group called the Bilderberg Group, and while a lot of people like to make fun of people who talk about the Bilderberg Group, they are the richest most elite bankers, politicians and heads of industry in the entire world and they meet once a year for several days and the media doesn't say a god damn thing. Think about that for a minute. You're telling me the media cares about Miley T. Cyrus but doesn't give a mention when the biggest and most powerful people in the entire world meet up for several days? This isn't just ratings, folks, this is a conspiracy. This is because the heads of each of the major television stations attend Bilderberg. The heads of all of the major scientific organizations, Universities and global institutions attend the Bilderberg Group meetings. If they don't follow the 'agenda', then they are no longer invited to the meeting. The media denounces them for some type of related or unrelated matter and if they aren't lucky and don't nab some lower position on the totem poll then well now they work as a cashier at Target. That is why "97% of climate scientists" believe in global warming. Because if they don't, they are either controlled opposition or have leaked through the cracks.

That said, I'd love to attend the global warming class at UCSB.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Reefer Madness of Climate Blame

You remaining climate blame believers must never fear monger our children again telling them that they WILL be doomed to a CO2 climate crisis until science says it firs and they finally agree on something beyond just "could be" a climate crisis. Is that too much to ask?
Respect the literal word of science and only threaten our children with science's "maybe" crisis not YOUR own little; "will be" a crisis consensus, no matter how much you wanted this misery to have been real.
The only crisis you remaining blamers and doomers have to worry about is how you’re grand kids will explain to their kids how you so selfishly and so easily and with such sickening childish glee (at the mere grunt of an exaggerated consensus headline) sentenced them all to a CO2 climate crisis.
Or are you remaining believers willing to face criminal charges for uttering your CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children when CO2 science is proven in court to be the tragic exaggeration that it is?
Deniers are better planet lovers; we don't fear monger our kids to LOVE the planet like neocons.
And get up to date like real progressives;
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Obama had not mentioned the crisis in two State of the Unions addresses.
Climate change was a lazy copy and paste news editor's dream come true.

mememine69 (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians."

Yep, the wealthy set these CO2 exchanges up and end up profiting to the tune of billions of dollars. That's because they can afford to buy politicians who write their legislation. Then they give the legislation titles like "Save the Puppies Act" to something that would allow federal officers guaranteed impunity to shoot dogs during no-knock raids.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2013 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NY Times‘ John M. Broder revealed how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

03 Nov 2009
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

November 6, 2010
Global warming-inspired cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies of the past 15 years. But it is dying a quiet death. In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading — the only purpose for which it was founded — this year.

Although the trading in carbon emissions credits was voluntary, the CCX was intended to be the hub of the mandatory carbon trading established by a cap-and-trade law, like the Waxman-Markey scheme passed by the House in June 2009. At its founding in November 2000, it was estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion.
That estimate ballooned over the years to $10 trillion.
Al Capone tried to use Prohibition to muscle in on a piece of all the action in Chicago.
The CCX’s backers wanted to use a new prohibition on carbon emissions to muscle in on a piece of, quite literally, all the action in the world.
While we don’t know how well Al Gore and Goldman Sachs fared on their investments in the CCX, we do know that there’s no reason to cry for Sandor. He received $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake in CCX when it was sold.
Not bad for a failure that somebody else financed.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The link posted by nitrogen is analagous to IPCC claims; It states that 97% of scientists agree, and includes no basis for this statement. 5 of the first 6 references are to dead links - the 6th ref. is to publications that I haven't checked out. More of the same.

First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related “climate scientists” agreed with the 2007 IPCC report.Soon after it was discovered that the actual number of scientists, who actually agreed with the report contents, was only 25.
Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought humans are the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.
Plenty of scientists openly oppose the IPCC’s findings – like the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition denying that humans are responsible for “global warming”.
“Climate science” is in a shambles and the real scientists are battling the socialist UN green agenda.
Maybe that's why the IPCC now admits its past reports were garbage.
(I can't post the entire link here, because it contains the word bulls**t, and Indy's editor doesn't like this - link to website, but not specific article, is below.)

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
Posted on July 18, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

How they claim 97-98% of scientists say
man is damaging the climate

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And 14noscams is an Obama "birther" and the earth really is flat!

sbreader (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That was an excellent argument sbreader, I find that climate change propagandists like yourself are really great at debating the scientific evidence presented against them by simply mocking the person presenting it! It is so effective and intellectually honest at the same time. Now I know exactly why 14noscams is wrong, it doesn't have anything to do with what they presented, but who presented it!! Now I get it! You can argue against anybody simply by mocking them and win!! You don't need any facts at all, you can just "claim" that all of the facts are on your side without rebutting any of the arguments that are presented against you! Wow, I really need to switch sides on this debate, it's so much easier arguing on your side sbreader!

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I often wonder if loon, 14 and foo are all the same person???

sbreader (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nitrogen, your graph plainly shows what we have been explaining all along. The last 15 years we have seen a flatline in global warming trends when the experts have stated that we should be seeing exponential increases in global warming due to human activities.

However there are a few issues with your graph as well. While the trend may be that the earth is warming, the medieval warming period back around the 1300s and 1400s was much warmer than today and they had higher CO2 concentrations than we do today. We are also coming out of a "mini-ice age" that occurred at the end of the 18th century, so it is a good thing that temperatures are rising and very likely that they would be rising at around the same rate with or without human activity. Then you have the other issue that 14noscams presented, being that the last decade has been cooler than any other decade on record using SATELLITE data, since the data began being recorded in the late 70s.

I would argue that satellite data is more accurate because it covers a much more broad spectrum of areas whereas most temperature monitors are located in big cities. What's the problem with a temperature monitoring station being located in a big city? Well, as cities grow and expand, more heat gets trapped in the concrete. Some big cities are as much as 10 degrees warmer at times due to the massive expanse of concrete surrounding them. So as cities got bigger, the temperatures in cities would be higher on average - and this would skew the global average temperatures as seen in your graph. When your graph aligns more accurately with the satellite data that we have had access to since the 1970s, I will take your graph more seriously.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Recent publications about the dirty money that funds the deniers is just the tip of the iceberg.

The minions that hope to say "we were just hired to type this stuff" will find that defense as useless as the Nazi Germans did.

They've been lazy and complacent in thinking that their tracks have been covered and that their internal e-mails are secure. They think that VPN's will hide the source of their maleficence. Publicly I can bring up HBGary, since everyone already knows about that one. Denier sociopaths believe that these "security" companies have their backs.

It doesn't take Inspector Gadget to figure out the role the Larry Bell's (quoted above) have played. It's just the beginning. They will die in prison cells.

JimYoung (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jim, you have been tricked and have it all completely backwards. Think about how big and powerful all the 'evil corporations' are and how much money they have. Think about how they control all of the media, including MSNBC and CNN (not just Fox News). Don't you think with all that money they would be putting in a little more effort into this instead of deniers being some small 'fringe' movement?

Any dirty money that funds 'deniers' is what is called "controlled opposition". They put them out there on purpose so they can be attacked and proven wrong by the establishment. I would look no further than Fox News for most of the controlled opposition.

There are trillions of dollars, on the other hand, being funneled into organizations like CNN, MSNBC, Universities and global scientific organizations that are supporting the MMGW theory along with all of the rest of the establishment propaganda. There are trillions of dollars to be made by the wealthy on these CO2 exchange markets. You just have it all backwards, the corporations want to push for MMGW theories because they want to control all of the CO2 output. They want it to be as expensive and cumbersome for their competitors to output CO2 as possible so that they can remain a monopoly energy or goods supplier.

I am actually all for limiting industries from outputting toxic chemicals. The problem is that CO2 is not a toxic chemical. If you've ever grown plants indoors you know that increasing CO2 levels actually increases plant growth. Plants LOVE CO2, and our atmosphere and planet have done just fine with higher CO2 concentrations back during the medieval warming period. In fact that was a time when England had fantastic crop yields and their population began to grow significantly. So go ahead and implement standards on toxic chemical output, but leave CO2 alone. If one project outputs relatively low CO2 but high levels of toxic chemicals and another project outputs relatively high CO2 but low levels of toxic chemicals then by limiting CO2 output we are going to end up choosing the project that outputs more toxic chemicals. That is not benefiting the environment.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like Hinnrichs, I am an engineer (who has worked on occasion with a few climate researchers but don't consider myself one). I find the climate change denial movement's exhortations unconvincing. Especially the ones who are politically-motivated to claim man has not had a significant hand in it.

When people like Hinnrichs give a presentation and point out what they claim are defects in research, the odds are they weren't involved in actually conducting that research. So they haven't a clue if it's a lack of understanding on their part, or something they missed or weren't privy to. Any work Hinnrich may have produced (has he written anything?) likely hasn't undergone review and he likely has not communicated with the original or related research teams. So anything Hinnrich says is suspect in my mind.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics
to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science:

(The point of the contrarians is to deliberately confuse people and make them think there is a debate among credible scientists.)

There is a consensus. NASA isn't "part of the conspiracy." See details below:

Rebuttal to "no warming in 15 years" bologna:

Lastly, using wattsupwiththat as a source is just ridiculous. The site is paid for by Heartland Institute and run by Anthony Watts, who is paid by Heartland to do just that. Heartland is an anti-science libertarian front group funded by fossil fuel companies and other big money, big corporate funders. Do the research on them yourself.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"Plants LOVE CO2"

Soil micro organisms love human feces. Does that mean I should go take a crap on your lawn?

The science on co2 + plants is WAY, WAY, WAY more complicated than what you're making it out to seem.

See below:

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate self proclaimed "skeptic scientists", they are almost always so full of crap I can't listen to 10 seconds of them talking without saying something really really stupid. nitrogen, you should really be 'sketpical' when you post things from them.

"Soil micro organisms love human feces. Does that mean I should go take a crap on your lawn?"

Have you heard of humanure? It takes some preparation, very simply some peet moss and a little bit of time. But I would certainly prefer that to dousing my lawn with chemical fertilizers. Of course I am fortunate not to have a 'lawn', I have local indigenous trees and plants that require little to no watering.

"It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops."

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and it comes straight off of "". First of all, the article admits right at the beginning that in greenhouses plants grow better with higher concentrations of CO2.

During the medieval warming period vegetation grew very well, rainforests thrived, the sea level did not rise and most of all the amount of area available for growing crops increased overall because the places in the more extreme north and south had longer and warmer summers with plenty of water to sustain crops. There is no evidence that arid lands increased compared to the amount of land that is currently too cold to grow crops for more than a few months or even less which were then able to produce crops in much greater abundance.

Also, as I stated previously, the earth was much warmer than it was today back in the 1300s and 1400s. The CO2 levels were also much higher. So to get your panties in a bunch over CO2 caused global warming you would have to explain why that was when humans were not outputting high amounts of CO2. Some theorize that warmer temperatures cause the atmosphere to increase the amount of CO2 as the atmosphere is a self-regulating system. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere may have little to no impact on the amount in the atmosphere because it is a self-regulating system.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as "Exxon" backing all the "evil libertarians", what a completely absurd theory. Libertarians historically get about 1-2% of the vote, once again, don't you think if the evil corporations really supported them they would be doing a little bit better? I mean seriously, you gotta use some logic here. Big corporations HATE libertarianism. I mean you do have a few beltway libertarians like the Kochs who I don't really consider libertarian, they may like low taxes, but real libertarians don't care about income tax we care about government spending. Why? because it doesn't matter how much they tax your income, it only matters how much they spend. If they don't tax enough of your income, then they borrow and print money which causes inflation and higher prices and that is just as bad if not worse than an income tax.

Big corporations feign supporting groups like libertarians and the Tea Party because they know everybody hates big corporations so if they associate themselves with libertarians then people will hate libertarians, too! Genius! But really libertarians are the worst enemy to large corporations. That is because large corporations derive the majority of their income and market share from government regulations that they paid politicians to pass so they could keep out smaller competition. They get subsidies, their competition doesn't. They can afford to comply with all of the regulations, that they happened to write themselves, and their competitors have to spend a bunch of money because they didn't implement their industry the way their bigger competitor who lobbied the government did. Not to mention the banking system in this country is completely fraudulent and many of the benefits go to the large corporations through the ability to leverage in astronomical amounts.

I've already posted plenty of other reasons why big corporations want to push MMGW and I will not keep repeating them.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Global warming is probably at least partially caused by man. That said, the science (and the funding for the research) is so contaminated by politics, getting a straight answer for decades is probably unlikely.

Of course those that say global warming is definitely caused by man are often the same ones that say the recent spate of earthquakes in the midwest is caused by fracking. It's just wishful speculation on their part.

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bingo, reader, I agree when you ask: "I often wonder if loon, 14 and foo are all the same person???" They are.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter is a police state worshiping tyrant, how could you possibly confuse us?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jim Young: The only prison cell in the picture is John Beale's;

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The army and us geological survey have actually concluded that fracking does cause earthquakes - but that's completely off topic:

loon/14noscams, one day i wish to be an expert reactive, hysterical, irrational contrarian like you.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

re the speculation that 3 of the most prolific posters here are really the same person: there is nothing to preclude the very seriously mentally ill from participating in the posting process; schizophrenia anyone!

sbreader (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Attacking a person's mental faculties is a classic misdirection that avoids having to deal with those pesky facts that they keep presenting. Keep going.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nitrogen just proved my point. There is no such CONCLUSION concerning earthquakes and fracking. Only conjecture which he/she quotes as fact. The same conjecture many apply in their "certainty" that global warming is irrefutably man made.

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All this talk of people being crazy..
So now 14noscams, Foo and Loon are the same person? Will you next be saying that I am the same one as them?

"Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I".

Lunatics? Or...Loonatics? (Moonstruck)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey, fin-man, if you swim with the pod, you're part of the whole pod, a segmented Mind with a series of way-stations called, variously, dolphinpod 12, 13, even 14...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Moonies can be considered lunatics but Loonpt makes a good point about how (true) libertarianism and corporations don't go hand in hand.

I'll make the point in two words: "corporate welfare".

Under a libertarian government, corporate welfare would disappear.

How many corporations are bankrolling the Libertarian Party?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every reputable science organization on the face of the planet accepts the reality of AGW. Richardson is an anti-science denier and has no business being on that board. The denier talking points presented here by three or one or however many deniers have been repeatedly soundly refuted ... is a good place to read such refutations ... read them yourself, don't take the word of ideologues who have no understanding of science.

JayB (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's true, Loon and Foo are polar opposites.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL - the deniers who say there is no global warming, use the argument that global warming has flat-lined. Oh, the irony.

Global Warming has slowed, not flat-lined. The atmosphere is a complicated issue, and many factors cause cooling and warming. One of the factors that caused warming also helped shrink the ozone layer. Since those chemicals have been banned, the ozone layer has started to heal, and possibly, since they were greenhouse gases, their banning may have had help slow warming. But, it has not stopped.

There are also measurements showing that the oceans are warming - i.e. some of the heat has been absorbed by the ocean.

Thus the slowing of the warming could be attributable to a number of factors - and arguments like there is no global warming because it has flat-lined, do not even begin to address or understand what is going on. Possibly some climate science courses would help, or maybe lots of reading, so that some understanding of the myriad factors at play, can begin to be appreciated.

Yep, plants like CO2, hence the more the better, and mammals like O2, hence the more the better to the point where O2 can oxidize everything to destruction? If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would be a cold, dark, uninhabitable place. Why? And how did O2 get into the atmosphere, because there was very little billions of years ago?

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's true, Loon and Foo are polar opposites.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 8:19 p.m. (S

...from Foon and Loo.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 3:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would love to talk with loon/14noscams in person. I suspect it's actually just Peter Adam.

As for Exxon funding all this stuff, it's not a theory. They hired the same big tobacco firm that was paying doctors to say smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's the same disinformation campaign but by an industry with even more money. It's been documented. No conspiracy theory.

Also, the libertarian philosophy of zero government regulation or oversight so the private sector can run free is exactly what these folks want. Under a libertarian government how do you propose we regulate pollution of any kind? You guys want free trade as if it were real freedom, to the point where those with the most power have no checks on their power. The philosophy is very counterintuitive.

I understand that you guys are afraid of the big bad science conspiracy being about totalitarian world statism, whereas those of us on the evil left are afraid of a corporate totalitarian statist society. What we all agree on is that we don't want centralized power and authority so big and out of control that it destroys our lives and liberties. Nobody trusts big government or corporations anymore, right? They're all a bunch of liars and cheats.

The main thing we disagree on right now is whether climate scientists are full of it or not. It's a matter of trust. Either you trust some scientists who have been proven to be paid by fossil fuel corporations, such as the ones you link to on these kinds of comment threads (google these peoples' names and check where their funding comes from), or you trust scientists who get paid university salaries just like every other university researcher out there. It's up to you. Either it's a conspiracy of big money trying to secure profits or it's a conspiracy of mislead leftists and independent researchers trying to create a new world order in which we use renewable energy versus nonrenewable energy, we have smaller cities with more walking and biking, and more energy efficient infrastructure.

There is alarmism on both sides and it comes from two very similar fears. I wish we could find a common ground because both of our core beliefs scare the other person, and it's a shame. We could have the power to mobilize a systemic change like we've never seen before, creating a world we all want to live in. It's too bad we keep yelling past each other.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I often wonder if loon, 14 and foo are all the same person???

sbreader (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2013 at 11:03 a.m.

I hate it when people post under more than one screen name.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mob consensus is not science. And never will be. Independent corroboration with the exact same set of variables is science.

A group of political junkies pontificating about "climate change" and most likely not having a single upper division science course among the entire pack of them would be laughable, if it was not so punishingly expensive to further this climate change hoax.

Were these not the exact same folks who pinned their hope on change just a few years ago. Now change is bad? Go figure.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the most part Lyz Hoffman's article was accurate, but the headline writer got it all wrong. He/she and others probably didn't see or hear Mr Hinnrichs' presentation. He agrees there is climate change, but questions man's influence. SB County Television will rebroadcast the APCD meeting Sunday at 5P.M. It should be in the video archives soon.
Lets get past this fear of hearing other sources of information regarding climate change. Mr Hinnrichs' presented reliable source information, only two of his 38 slides were personal opinion. Lets discuss his presentation and stop the name calling and insults.
Science is continuously evolving and the answers are not always final, as science learns more, solutions are changed or refined; so it may be with climate change.

jrnjim (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)


I have a copy of Hinnrich's powerpoint and it is the exact opposite of reliable information.

Hinnrich's actually disputes whether there is warming happening or not. He tries to say that Mann's hockey stick has been discredited, somehow saying that the warming trend of the last 100 years has been exaggerated. In fact, Mann's hockey stick has been verified by at least a dozen reconstructions over the last decade. Hinnrich's is flat out wrong there, and it's the first point in his powerpoint. Second, he talks about the "cooling trend" of the last 15 years. I've already provided links showing that that trend is a slow down and the heat is thought to have been absorbed by our ocean, as ocean continues to warm and acidify. Overall, warming is still happening at a rate higher than any other period since humans have lived on earth -- and it begins at the onset of the industrial revolution.

Another embarrassing problem with Hinnrich's presentation is that he says that the sun is just as likely to be causing the warming (which he disputes is even happening), but this has been discredited by scientists over, and over, and over again:

Hinnrich's is NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. He's an electrical engineer who works for the oil industry. jrnjim, the science has been settled for some time. And the CA state air pollution board would be embarrassed and baffled at how this electrical engineer with obvious conflicts of interest was even allowed to espouse such nonsense views based on information gathered from the Santa Barbara News Press and Heartland Institute.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carbon dioxide, a benign, life giving molecule has been miscast by a world wide political movement to be an environmental hazard in what will soon be discovered to be the hoax of the century. This molecule, CO2 is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things and even comes from nocturnal emissions by plants. It forms the bubbles in your soda, wine and beer.

Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which 93% comes from “natural sources” which are all beyond human control. These sources include decomposition of organic matter, exhaling by living things and volcanic vents, which is by far the greatest atmospheric source. The climate change hoax is based on faulty science.

zebu111 (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If we now have 7 billion people exhaling C02 every single second of their lives on planet earth instead of only 3 billion sets of lungs a few generations ago, how can one escape the conclusion the C02 ppm increase is not "man" based.

Keep it zipped up is the best defense. C02 is good for growing more pot plants. So for 2014, do look more on the bright side of life.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Industrial activity is the primary cause of CO2 emissions, not human exhalation. You people are so frustrating.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are we sending so much aid to "under-developed countries" when they already have the answers we are looking for: Subsistence living in a straw hut.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enviro-wackos lamely defend 7 billion people exhaling C02 as a "closed system" that net zeros the carbon eaten and the carbon expelled. Except they forgot about the carbon necessary to produce and transport the carbon based plants to 7 billion people, instead of 3 billion people.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations".
Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart stated:
[Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998].

In 1974 Maurice Strong gave a speech at a college in Canada at which he said: “The ethic of abundant resources must give way to the ethics of scarcity and conservation” … “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease”.

In 1973, the NYT quoted David Rockefeller's statement “Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering a high morale and community propose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”.

In 1991 David Rockefeller thanked the NY Times, Time magazine, the Washington Post and unnamed other "great publications" for respecting their promises of discretion over the previous 40 years regarding information acquired during meetings of "the intellectual elite and world bankers."

In 1994, he stated "“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” (David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations Business Council, September 23, 1994.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, it is possible that it is a scheme by the Rockefellers of the world to bring about a system of global slavery to enslave us all into a system of anti-freedom. That is possible.

It's just extremely unlikely.

Study climate science. Not libertarian conspiracy websites.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2013 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Lets get past this fear of hearing other sources of information regarding climate change."
-- jrnjim

Has Hinnrichs published any work on climate science that's been reviewed? If not, has he informally discussed his "findings" with climate researchers to at least gain agreement that he's on the right track?

Without any vetting, the County should not regard Hinnrichs as an expert source of information reliable enough to base public policy on.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, did the plants totally love the CO2 during the Permian extinction?

Massive amounts of quickly introduced CO2 impacts earth far beyond warming. I kinda wish "global warming" was a less popular phrase in this discussion.

gannysesh (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stop breathing right now, and not one will get hurt!

OMG, the global warming people are referring to the Permiam extinction now to make their points. Oy. I guess they ran out of common sense arguments.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone care to guess what the greatest anti-global warming governmental policy change ever made was?

It was China's one-child policy. I just can't imagine where the world would be now without it. Of course, many in this country chide China for that policy. What we're doing here now doesn't even rate as high as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"In 1973, the NYT quoted David Rockefeller's statement “Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering a high morale and community propose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”.

Let's see what that "price" was to get China to be such a happy and efficient county: the slaughter of 5 million people for a start.*

Which does not count the further slaughter and displacement of the Mao cultural revolution decades later.

(*Source: The Tragedy of Liberation: History of the Chinese Revolution 1945-1957 by Frank Dikotter)

Of course those Chinese murder numbers pale in face of the US legal abortion rates of 30 million to date. But I digress.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The oceans are warming??

"Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012"

"Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%"

"Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity. As an example here is an Associated Press story that avoids mentioning the real mission of the scientists aboard the icebound Russian ship:"

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Antarctic ship was trying to reach the land base of a 1912 group of explorers to compare measurements. But there was so much ice, they could not even get close.

I guess that alone tell you what global warming has done since 1912 in this corner of the world, now doesn't it. Global warming has apparently clogged the Antarctic seas with more ice during these past 100 years.

Must work something like a refrigerator using heat and electricity to make things frozen and cold? I dunno.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Happy New year, and there will be a new year. Up to you to make it happy.

Just spend these next 7 minutes with George Carlin on the Environment and you will be able to look on the bright side of life:

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More fun things to watch.

Video of the 1912 landing by the Antarctic explorers at the same spot the current global warming tourists want to replicate and remeasure, except are now trapped by volumes of ice miles away in 2013:

Scroll down the full article to get to this 1912 video in "update #3.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I guess that settles it footfighter. Job well done!

You can stop commenting now.

gannysesh (anonymous profile)
January 1, 2014 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But I digress.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2013 at 11 a.m

WhatEVER you do, do NOT digress. I will not toleration digression.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 1, 2014 at 1:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

UN to commission independent scientific inquiry into IPCC

“Martin Parry was co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group on impacts, which produced a 2007 report that included the false claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Parry, a climate expert at the Grantham Institute and Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London, said he was "perplexed" at the way the media has focused on what he called minor points. The discovery of the mistake, and the way it was handled, has produced calls for IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri to resign.
It has also led to reports of further errors in the report, including that the IPCC wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level.”

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

Forced to apologise: Chairman of the IPCC Raj Pachauri over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures. It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal.

…an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said:
‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’

When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.”

14noscams (anonymous profile)
January 1, 2014 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UN to commission independent scientific inquiry into IPCC
“Martin Parry was co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group on impacts, which produced a 2007 report that included the false claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Parry, a climate expert at the Grantham Institute and Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London, said he was "perplexed" at the way the media has focused on what he called minor points.
Parry also defended IPCC statements on losses due to disasters, projected Amazon forest die-off, African agricultural decline and the use of observations made by climbers of high-altitude ice. He said many of the criticisms were based on a mistaken belief that the IPCC could not use so-called grey literature – reports from outside academic journals such as from campaign groups and governments…Even if not peer-reviewed, there are reports that contain valuable information."
The discovery of the mistake, and the way it was handled, has produced calls for IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri to resign. It has also led to reports of further errors in the report, including that the IPCC wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level.”

The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory Peter Ferraro

IPCC Head Rajendra Pachauri Acknowledges 17 Year Stall In Global Warming

Terry Wilson
February 25, 2013
Shortly after the release, Nasa’s James Hansen acknowledged that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.
Now Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations IPCC has Acknowledged the pause in warming.

Pachauri IPPC Chairman and Chief Scientist, isn’t a scientist; I think his qualification for this position is his association with the Rockefeller Foundation and with Rockefeller trustee, former UN asst. Sec. General and IPPC founder Maurice Strong.
Pachauri’s past affiliations: Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P., The Rockefeller Foundation, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Asian Development Bank, Íslandsbanki hf , North Carolina State University, GAIL (India) Limited, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, NTPC Ltd., Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc., The Energy and Resources Institute, Siderian Ventures, llc

14noscams (anonymous profile)
January 1, 2014 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops! Earlier when I mentioned the Permian extinction, I meant the Paleocone! During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the ocean saw a substantial increase in CO2, caused mostly by deep-sea volcanic activity. As we know, phytoplankton are responsible for about half of Earth's photosynthetic conversion of CO2 to O. When CO2 enters the ocean, it's converted to carbonic acid, and an extra H+ drops off, resulting in a lowering of the ocean's pH. A more acidic ocean threatens, among many things, the calcium carbonate bodies of many phytoplankton. Note: we can talk about this without bringing up temperatures!

There's a reason why Earth spent millions of years shoving these fossils deep underground: to bring about an atmosphere that is more conducive to life.

More info:

gannysesh (anonymous profile)
January 2, 2014 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover

Study says warmer temperatures are largely due to natural 300-year cycles
Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction

The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.


The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.

The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’."


See, I told you guys..

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 7, 2014 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You really should not quote science articles from the Daily Mail.

A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.

The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual variability around the long-term global warming trend and no cause for excited over-interpretation. -

See more at:

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 7, 2014 at 12:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

34 Years of Satellite Temperature Data Show Global Warming Is on a Plateau

Ronald Bailey|Dec. 26, 2012 12:06 pm

University of Alabama climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer have released their monthly statistics on global warming trends detected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency satellites. In the press release accompanying the data, Christy notes that the rise in global average temperatures has been largely stalled since the big El Nino event in 1998:

The lowest level of the global atmosphere has warmed almost one half of a degree Celsius (0.48 C or 0.86 degrees Fahrenheit) during the 34 years since instruments aboard NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. While the atmosphere has warmed over the full 34-year time span, it has not warmed noticeably since the major El Niño of 1997-98 — giving us about a decade and a half of generally stable temperatures.

Since 2002, there has been a plateau of relatively warmer temperatures with only 12 months when the global average temperature was cooler than the long-term seasonal norm. In fact, compared to the 30-year temperature baseline, the most recent five years (12/07-11/12) averaged only 0.003 C (0.173 to 0.176 above seasonal norms) warmer than the preceding five years (12/02-11/07). ..."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 7, 2014 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

100% of reputable science organizations, 99% of peer-reviewed climate science articles, and 97% of climate scientists accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, but you will never see any denier reference any of that; instead they refer only to people funded by the fossil fuel industry and to libertarian ideologues.

Why are these people so adamant about downplaying the extremely well documented threat of global warming and the obvious role of the massive incineration of fossil fuels? It is of course because of money and ideology, not the scientist's ethic of following the evidence wherever it goes and a concern for the truth. If free markets can solve every problem, then why are these people so desperate to deny that there is a problem?

You won't find the truth about AGW at libertarian and fossil fuel industry -funded blogs, but you will find it at

and numerous other *scientific* sources.

JayB (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2014 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: